Worcester City Council moves to restrict where sex offenders can live, despite legal warning

Tuesday

Aug 19, 2014 at 10:36 PM

By Nick Kotsopoulos TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

WORCESTER — The City Council has asked the city administration to prepare a draft ordinance for its next meeting that would restrict where Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders could live.

District 4 Councilor Sarai Rivera requested the draft ordinance Tuesday night even though the city solicitor has advised the council that the city could face legal challenges down the road by adopting such restrictions.

Ms. Rivera said she feels it is an issue of such importance that it requires the council to make every effort to come up with restrictions that would meet any legal challenge.

She pointed out that residency restrictions exist in other communities, and she said Worcester needs to do what it can to put similar restrictions in place.

The council has been talking about wanting to restrict Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders from living within certain distances of public parks, schools, day care centers and other areas where young children may congregate.

A Level 2 sex offender is deemed to have a moderate risk of re-offense, while the risk for a person classified as Level 3 to re-offend is considered high. Access to information about Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders is available through the police department and the state sex offender registry board.

"At this point it's worth having the conversation," Ms. Rivera said. "I'd like the administration to present us with a draft ordinance for our next meeting (Sept. 16) so we can see what we are looking at. We can then send it to committee for further discussion. I want to continue to have a conversation about this. We have to make this work and I am asking the administration to take this up as a priority."

In a report that went before the City Council Tuesday night, City Solicitor David M. Moore said an attempt to limit areas where Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders could live may prompt a legal challenge based on court rulings stemming from efforts undertaken by other cities and towns.

While he said the council was not prohibited from pursuing such an ordinance, he made it clear that the city could face legal risks through its implementation.

Mr. Moore pointed out that a Superior Court last month invalidated an ordinance in the city of Lynn that prohibited Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of a school or park.

Mr. Moore said the court overturned the Lynn ordinance, not on the basis of due process rights, but rather under the Home Rule Amendment and its prohibition against municipalities from enacting laws that are "inconsistent" with state law.

Councilor-at-Large Morris A. Bergman said he finds it frustrating that the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development can have regulations that prohibit sex offenders from living in public housing, while the city cannot impose its own restrictions.

District 5 Councilor Gary Rosen, meanwhile, said it is the city's duty to be able to protect children from sexual predators.

"We are talking about folks who have offended against the most vulnerable people in this city, our children," he said. "It's our duty, it's our right and it's our responsibility to protect these children. We are talking about people who have a history of harassing our children. I can't believe the courts will not allow us to protect our children."

Mr. Moore said 40 municipalities in the state have adopted ordinances placing residency restrictions on Level 2 and Level 3 offenders, but added that the state attorney general has "cautiously approved" such ordinances in only about 25 of those communities.